- (1.) IN this petition we have been called upon to examine the claim of a teacher for grant on attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) THE petitioner was a Matriculate. He, as an untrained teacher, since 8-7-1966 served in the school of respondent No. 2 society. On attaining the age of superannuation, i. e. 58, he on 30-4-1978 retired from the service. He made a claim for grant of pension. The respondent No. 2 society subsequently vide Resolution dated 22-4-1988 confirmed the petitioner, Respondent no. 1 by the impugned order dated 2-12-1988 informed that the petitioner was untrained and in view of the provision laid down under Rule 68. 4 of the Secondary Schools Code (the Code), he could not be confirmed in the service. The pension, therefore, cannot be granted.
(3.) MR. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, tried to urge for sometime that the petitioner held the post in clear and regular vacancy. Moreover, the society by the resolution has confirmed the petitioner in the service. The petitioner as such was holding a permanent post substantively. He was entitled to grant to pension. The impugned order of the Deputy Director dated 2-12-1988 denying the pension is erroneous and illegal. The petitioner was admittedly an untrained teacher throughout. He has not acquired any professional qualification for being a trained teacher. Rule 68. 4 of the Code specifically provides that no untrained teacher be continued in service for a period of more than five years. Such teacher could be confirmed only after having obtained the necessary professional qualification. In view of the specific provision, the resolution adopted by the society was contrary and offending to the specific rule. The resolution was, therefore, illegal and thus inoperative and ineffective. The petitioner could not acquire the status of a permanent teacher on the strength of the said resolution. Moreover the respondent so treating the petitioners temporary granted him other benefits like gratuity etc.;